FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

NOV 1 2000

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LIMITED GAMING OF AMERICA, INC.,

		Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DORAN, WALTERS, ROST, SELTER & WOLFE, sued as:  Doran, Walters, Rost, Selter & Wolfe, P.A.; THEODORE R. DORAN, Individually; LAWRENCE G. WALTERS, Individually; SCOTT R. ROST, Individually; AARON R. WOLFE, Individually,

		Defendants-Appellants.	

No.  99-5241
(D.C. No. 98-CV-134-K)
(N.D. Okla.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

	Defendants-appellants appeal from the district court’s ruling denying their motion for sanctions against Limited Gaming of America, Inc. (LGA) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent powers.  Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1291.  On appeal, appellants do not challenge the district court’s denial of Rule 11 sanctions, apparently abandoning that claim.  See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F.3d 979, 984 n.7 (10th Cir. 1994).  This court reviews the district court’s ruling on the motion for sanctions only for abuse of discretion.  See Martinez v. Roscoe, 100 F.3d 121, 123 (10th Cir. 1996) (reviewing inherent powers to impose sanctions); RTC v. Dabney, 73 F.3d 262, 265 (10th Cir. 1995) (reviewing sanctions pursuant to § 1927). 
	After careful review of the record in light of appellants’ arguments, the applicable law, and the deferential standard of review, we conclude that the district court’s decision to deny the motion for sanctions was not an abuse of discretion.  Further, we agree with LGA that appellants’ arguments on appeal fail to challenge the legal or factual basis of the district court’s decision in light of the standard of review.  Appellants instead contend that the district court improperly and incorrectly weighed the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom.  In determining whether the district court abused its discretion, we do not reweigh the evidence, but determine only whether that court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.  See FDIC v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 152 F.3d 1266, 1272 (10th Cir. 1998); Barrett v. Tallon, 30 F.3d 1296, 1302 (10th Cir. 1994).
	The judgment is AFFIRMED.

				Entered for the Court

				Carlos F. Lucero
				Circuit Judge